http://www.boston.com/…

The US House this afternoon gave final congressional approval — and sent to President Obama for his signature — a bill that would dramatically expand public service opportunities.

The legislation is named for Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, who cowrote the initial version of it with sometime political ally Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah.

Kennedy returned to Washington last week, in part to vote for the bill, and received a standing ovation from his colleagues at the conclusion of the vote.

“Today’s House vote again demonstrates the high priority Congress gives to encouraging citizens of all ages in all communities across America to participate in public service,” Kennedy said in a statement. “This legislation will enable many more Americans to do something for their country to meet the many challenges facing us. I look forward to the President signing this bill into law so that a welcome new era of national and community service can begin.”

UPDATE: President Obama issued a statement applauding the bill’s passage.

“I congratulate the House on passing the bipartisan Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act. This is legislation that will usher in a new era of service in America, and I look forward to signing it into law when I return to Washington.”

“Because of this legislation, millions of Americans at all stages of their lives will have new opportunities to serve their country. From improving service learning in schools to creating an army of 250,000 Corps members a year dedicated to addressing our nation’s toughest problems. From connecting working Americans to a variety of part-time service opportunities to better utilizing the skills and experience of our retirees and baby boomers. This legislation will help tap the genius of our faith based and community organizations, and it will find the most innovative ideas for addressing our common challenges and helping those ideas grow. But while our government can provide every opportunity imaginable for us to serve our communities, now it is up to each of us to seize those opportunities. I call on all Americans to stand up and do what they can to serve their communities, shape our history and enrich both their own lives and the lives of others across this country.”

New opportunities to serve their country? Couldn’t they just walk down the street and pick up trash? Or go to the local soup kitchen? Offer to tutor kids or work for the Red Cross or donate time to the local old folks home?

There is infinate demand for help. The opportunities are literally unlimited. The idea that the government has to create opportunities is out and out bullshit.

‘Defense’ is the largest single government expenditure. Obama and friends want to spend just as much on a ‘civilian army.’ What the Serve America Act / GIVE Act is is in fact the continuing creation of a socio-fascist state. Obama’s idea for a Hitler youth like program plus an increase in government ’service’ is right out of Hitler’s, Mussolini’s, Stalin’s play book. This is about involuntary servitude and a replacement of family, community and God with the State.

And check out what those who participate CAN’T do while part of the program.

http://www.ballot-access.org/…

In approximately half the states, the number of signatures required for a new party, or an independent candidate, depends on how many voters voted in the last election, or on how many people were registered to vote in the last election. In some of the states with the most restrictive requirements, the 2010 or 2012 requirements are substantially higher than they were in 2006 or 2008. This is because, across the nation, turnout and registration were relatively high this season.

California requires a statewide independent candidate to submit a petition of 1% of the number of registered voters at the last election. In 2008 a statewide independent needed 158,372 signatures, but in 2010 such a candidate will need 173,041 signatures. No one has qualified as a statewide independent in California since 1992.

Georgia requires a statewide independent candidate to submit a petition of 1% of the number of registered voters at the last election for which that office was elected. In 2008 an independent presidential candidate needed 42,489 signatures. In 2012 an independent presidential candidate will need 57,582 signatures, unless the law is changed. In 2010, a new party that wishes to run a full slate of candidates for U.S. House will need 287,910 signatures.

Texas requires an independent presidential candidate to collect signatures equal to 1% of the last presidential vote. In 2008 such a candidate needed 74,108 signatures. In 2012 such a candidate will need more than 80,531 signatures (Texas hasn’t finished its official tally yet; the requirement will be somewhat higher than 1% of the unofficial tally).

North Carolina requires a new or previously unqualified party, and a statewide independent, to submit signatures equal to 2% of the last gubernatorial vote. In 2008 the requirement was 69,734. In 2010 and 2012 it will be higher than 85,376.

Just can’t get a break can they?

http://www.ballot-access.org/…

According to the campaign website, Cindy Sheehan has qualified for the ballot as an independent against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in California’s 8th district.

An email sent this afternoon to supporters says she turned in over 20,000 signatures with at least 10,198 qualifying.

Sheehan is the first independent House candidate to qualify for the California ballot since 1996. California’s requirement for independent candidates for U.S. House is the 4th most difficult in the nation (only Georgia, Illinois, and North Carolina have more severe requirements).

She has the endorsement of the local Peace and Freedom Party and Green Party.

Are her policies better then Pelosi’s? Not by much but at least she’s anti-war and an outsider.

http://www.ballot-access.org/…

Although Louisiana holds a presidential primary on February 9, the Republican Party chooses its delegates to the national convention with a two-step caucus/convention system. The first round was held on February 22, when approximately 10,000 Louisiana Republicans turned out to vote in eleven different cities for delegate to the state convention. Each U.S. House district chose 15 delegates.

It appears that Ron Paul supporters outnumbered the supporters of any of his opponents. But since this was predicted, the supporters of Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, and Mitt Romney, cooperated to set up a “fusion” slate of unpledged candidates for Delegate. The “fusion” slate, labeled the “Pro-Life/Pro-Family” slate, beat the Ron Paul slate in each of the 7 U.S. House districts. Formally, the “fusion” slate billed itself as an “uncommitted” slate, and no one really knows how many supporters of each presidential candidate are on the fusion slate, except the campaigns themselves.

This is what happened in Wyoming too. Over at LewRockwell.com/blog they have a link to a handout for the Pro-Life/Pro-Family delegate slate. It’s sad they have to resort to ganging up just to keep him out. Hopefully some of those chosen are pro-Paul.

http://www.thelibertypapers.org/…

Out of 81 candidates running as Libertarians in Tuesday’s elections, 14 (17%) won (full results here). While this may not sound very encouraging, it is encouraging to me to see at least a few Libertarians actually winning elections and holding public office. A small town mayor here, a judge there, and a hand full of city council members can make a difference in their communities. This can be especially important dealing with issues such as eminent domain, zoning, and property rights in general.

It’s good to see that the Libertarian Party is capable of running winning campaigns in local elections. We have a long way to go before we can hope to populate the state legislatures, governors’ mansions, and state courts with Libertarians, much less anything as ambitious as the U.S. House, Senate, and the Oval Office but that doesn’t mean we cannot win on the local level where the government is closest to us.

I’m not familiar with our success rates in the past but 17% sounds pretty damn good to me. I’ve been thinking perhaps next election I’ll run on the Libertarian ticket for something.